I read the first article of your two-part series on genetically modified foods, and would like to comment. I am a farmer who grows both non-GMO as well as GMO crops. I find that there is room in our society for both, as well as organically grown crops, although organic remains a small (but growing) percentage of the market.
I do not find fault with those consumers who want to select non-GMO food products. They are doing so because of a fear — real or contrived — that somehow GMO crops may be harmful to their health. But I do take issue with the fear that GMO crops are for some reason unhealthy, less nutritious, or less tasteful.
As was mentioned in the first article, genetically modified crops have been around since the mid-’90s when tomatoes were introduced. Since that time, genetic modification has resulted in reduced usage of petrochemicals to control insects and weeds. It has resulted in increased yields, which translates into a larger, consistent and inexpensive food supply. It has resulted in amazing nutritional enhancements.
I refer to the product created by Monsanto known as “golden rice,” which is capable of growing Vitamin-A in a grain where it did not exist before. (Google “golden rice” to learn more about this amazing crop!) This breakthrough alone has the capability of saving millions of undernourished third-world country inhabitants from Vitamin-A deficiency blindness. Genetically modified bananas have recently been introduced. The new bananas are resistant to banana virus. Until this discovery was made, it was believed that bananas may have gone the way of the dinosaur and become extinct! (Google “genetically modified bananas” to be amazed!)
Numerous universities and food companies have conducted endless studies to determine if GMO crops are less nutritious, less tasteful, or in any way harmful to our health. They have come up empty-handed and have declared these crops and foods safe.
I maintain that we need to believe in science. We cannot pick and choose. Science is science. If we have learned how to save a life by installing a stent or a heart valve, do we say, “Oh, but it is unnatural?” Of course not. If we discover that fertilizer increases the production of a plant, do we deny ourselves of using it? If we find that hybridization of corn (back in the ’30s) doubles the yield, do we say, “We mustn’t tamper with nature?” Do we refuse hip or knee replacement after science has shown that the artificial joint extends our active life and alleviates pain? Of course not.
When we make scientific breakthroughs that enhance our standard of living, create greater life expectancy, or increase our ability to sustain our growing population, we embrace those discoveries. Genetic modification is one of those breakthroughs.
